It
is astonishing to note that a great blessing for our times is that Allah has
once again raised a spiritual son of the Promised Massih (as) with the grand
title of ‘Musleh Maoud’ on February 20, 2004. It is also instructive to note that the political and military scenario emerging and
unfolding in our times as well point to the arresting scenarios divined in the prophecies, if one pays close attention to the developments
in the Arab world in the last decade and elsewhere. Indeed, for those who believe
in Allah and His astoundingly subtle ways, these are times of a second Musleh Maoud in the personhood of Hadhrat
Munir Ahmad Azim Sahib (atba), spiritually and metaphorically fulfilling
the great Divine prophecies in this era.
War clouds are now hovering over Syria. The on-going civic
and military strife between the regime of Bashar Al Assad and the opposition
militia is devastating the land. And it is increasingly likely that the raging
battle will move towards further escalation in the coming days and months.
Thoughtful observers already point to the vultures in the sky, with the United
States, Israel, Russia, China, European Union and other players calibrating
themselves for a war. Will the war in Syria descent into a regional war,
consuming Iran, Turkey and the wider Middle East region in its wake? How it
will impact on the common people everywhere, with the energy security of
nations in peril? We reproduce below an insightful essay on the Syrian
situation by MJ Akbar, one of India’s most
distinguished editors and authors. This was written for, and published in, the Times of India, March 24, 2013.
Is America planning to commemorate the tenth anniversary of
the war which eliminated Saddam Hussein and destroyed Iraq with an intervention
in Syria?
Jaundiced Arab eyes are asking a cynical question: if Lady
Camilla and Prince Charles drop by to see war refugee Syrian children at a camp
in Jordan, as they did on 13 March, can NATO troops be far behind? Observers
are adding 2 plus 2, and perhaps getting 5. But they note that when Republican
Senator John McCain puts on his best stentorian manner and claims Bashar Assad
is committing genocide against his own people, something is beginning to cook
in Washington. Across the Atlantic, Britain and France have urged the European
Union to lift a ban on weapons for Syrian rebels.
Little flakes point towards a storm. This clamour, half
official and half unofficial, seeks to suggest that only Nato can rescue a
crucial nation on the geostrategic map from the despotic and dynastic rule of
the Assad family. So far, the war in Syria has been an uneven contest between a
Russian-backed authoritarian regime and disparate rebel groups.
International intervention means nothing without American
involvement. Britain and France have neither the stomach nor the wherewithal
for unilateral action.
Barack Obama is not a pacifist, as evidence from Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Yemen proves. But he is too smart to repeat the foolishness of
George Bush the Younger. He will not use lies as justification for war. He has
laid down a "red line": the use of chemical weapons, which the Assad
regime possesses. A flutter went up this week when both government and rebels
accused each other of using chemical weapons. Washington reacted calmly,
ordering its intelligence analysts to check the allegations. At the moment of
writing this is still in progress. If Obama does go to the United Nations it
will be with solid evidence, not hearsay manufactured in the neocon imagination,
as Bush did.
Bush made unforgiveable errors. His target was Saddam
Hussein, and he went to war against the whole of Iraq. Obama will choose his
enemy more carefully. He will more probably concentrate his military attention
on the elite that controls Damascus, and avoid battle to the extent he can with
the Syrian army. This would mean maximum use of missiles and warplanes, and
minimal use of infantry. The official Assad palace in Damascus is atop a high
hill and very vulnerable to air assault, but the Assads understand that and
have moved out. But dominant air cover will be invaluable to rebels who have
already reached the edge of Damascus.
Obama is unlikely to risk American boots on the battlefield.
The heavy lifting on the field would probably be left to Turkish troops; Turkey
is a member of NATO, and has provided refuge and sanctuary to both civilians
and fighters. It has an important national interest in the outcome of this
conflict. Nor can Assad hope for popular support in his own country. His Shia
sect, the Alawites, who form only 10 per cent of the population, have alienated
the Sunnis. Foreign intervention will get just that touch of local support that
makes its efforts credible.
The tough part may not be the big war in the beginning, but
the small wars of succession that will plague Syria in the aftermath. The
rebels do not ride under a single flag. Their motivation varies. Some of them
are Islamists; others dream of becoming regional warlords. They could turn
Syria into another Lebanon. Afghanistan may be an extreme case, but it is
always worth noting that three decades after the Soviet troops were driven out
the wars of succession are not over. It is easier to end a war between nations
than calm the consequences of an insurrection.
Whatever the eventual price, it is obvious that the present
order in Damascus is no longer sustainable. When the conflict was still in its
incipient stage, Turkey advised Assad to accept a compromise and lead the
change rather than defy it and invite bloodshed. Bashar Assad had seen his
father Hafez contain and defeat one challenge after another, and thought he
could do so as well. But Hafez Assad lived in an age of dictators and
comparatively settled internal and external relations. Bashar Assad rules at a
time of turbulence on the Arab street and massive flux in the neighbourhood. He
could have been an exemplar of transition. He chose a worse fate. Russia, and
China to a lesser degree, will continue to back Assad, if for no other reason
than to rebuff America, but not at the cost of their self-interest. Iran is a
far more reliable ally, but its ability to protect Assad against a carefully
constructed, UN-authorised American-Turkish operation must be in question.
This is a war whose opening stages have become a prolonged
prologue. Every war is unpredictable, and no one can say how it will end. But once they start, the middle and end
games will be quicker.